1. Tin Tức

Dân chủ là gì Và Việt Nam có dân chủ không?

Mình thấy có một số bạn đang tranh luận rất gay gắt về nội dung này. Vậy nên mình cần thảo luận sâu hơn về bản chất của dân chủ. Tại sao trên thế giới có rất nhiều quốc gia dân chủ, nhưng cũng có nhiều nước phát triển, nhiều nước không phát triển.
Từ khóa: dân chủ, chính trị, tin tức

Mình có viết trả lời câu hỏi này rồi, nhưng có vẻ ít người đọc nên viết lại trên blog. Bạn đọc thêm thử

Về cơ bản, dân chủ mà phần lớn người trên thế giới đề cập có thể được hiểu như là một bước tiến hoá tiếp theo trong lịch sử nhân loại, sau chủ nghĩa tư bản. Thời của Marx, ông ta nghĩ rằng chủ nghĩa xã hội (hay chủ nghĩa cộng sản) là chế độ tiếp theo sau tư bản chủ nghĩa, và xây dựng lý thuyết về nó trước khi xây dựng CNXH. Nhưng sau 2 cuộc thế chiến, và sự trỗi dậy của các nước Bắc Âu, Úc, NZ, Nhật,... chế độ dân chủ tự do mới hình thành và dần dần thay thế cho mô hình tư bản chủ nghĩa vốn rất lỗi thời.

Việt Nam chắc chắn không có dân chủ, vì VN theo đuổi con đường chủ nghĩa xã hội. Nên biết rằng chủ nghĩa xã hội cũng là một bước tiếp theo của tư bản chủ nghĩa, giống như chế độ dân chủ tự do mà thôi. Kiểu như 2 con đường đi khác nhau.

Đặc điểm quan trọng nhất để mình có thể nói như thế, là vì CNXH công nhận công hữu về tư liệu sản xuất, về đất đai (đều do Nhà nước quản lý), trong khi dân chủ tự do thì nhấn mạnh rất nhiều quyền tư hữu và tự do ngôn luận. Đó là cái khác biệt về bản chất, thế nên nếu có ai đặt vấn đề: Khi nào VN có dân chủ, thì câu trả lời luôn là KHÔNG BAO GIỜ. Nên đặt ngược câu hỏi: Liệu VN có cần dân chủ để phát triển không? Tôi nghĩ là không.

Như có lần tôi nói trong một vài comment gần đây. Bản chất các nước dân chủ là có tầng lớp lãnh đạo kém tài nhiều tật, người dân thì quá nhiều người thiếu hiểu biết nên thường bầu chọn lãnh đạo sai. Chính vì vậy, họ mới cần cơ chế đối lập đủ mạnh để điều chỉnh lãnh đạo theo hướng có lợi hơn. Trong khi các nước XHCN như VN hay TQ hay Triều Tiên thì có lãnh đạo quá tốt tính và tuyệt vời (cách kiểm tra: tôi thách bất cứ ai tìm được điểm gì xấu của ông Trọng, ông Phúc đó), chính vì thế, cánh đối lập nếu có chỉ làm tình hình VN xấu đi mà thôi, không tốt cho phát triển. Tức là Việt Nam không cần dân chủ và không bao giờ trở thành nước dân chủ, Việt Nam chỉ cần trở thành nước xã hội chủ nghĩa đúng nghĩa mà thôi.

Trả lời

Mình có viết trả lời câu hỏi này rồi, nhưng có vẻ ít người đọc nên viết lại trên blog. Bạn đọc thêm thử

Về cơ bản, dân chủ mà phần lớn người trên thế giới đề cập có thể được hiểu như là một bước tiến hoá tiếp theo trong lịch sử nhân loại, sau chủ nghĩa tư bản. Thời của Marx, ông ta nghĩ rằng chủ nghĩa xã hội (hay chủ nghĩa cộng sản) là chế độ tiếp theo sau tư bản chủ nghĩa, và xây dựng lý thuyết về nó trước khi xây dựng CNXH. Nhưng sau 2 cuộc thế chiến, và sự trỗi dậy của các nước Bắc Âu, Úc, NZ, Nhật,... chế độ dân chủ tự do mới hình thành và dần dần thay thế cho mô hình tư bản chủ nghĩa vốn rất lỗi thời.

Việt Nam chắc chắn không có dân chủ, vì VN theo đuổi con đường chủ nghĩa xã hội. Nên biết rằng chủ nghĩa xã hội cũng là một bước tiếp theo của tư bản chủ nghĩa, giống như chế độ dân chủ tự do mà thôi. Kiểu như 2 con đường đi khác nhau.

Đặc điểm quan trọng nhất để mình có thể nói như thế, là vì CNXH công nhận công hữu về tư liệu sản xuất, về đất đai (đều do Nhà nước quản lý), trong khi dân chủ tự do thì nhấn mạnh rất nhiều quyền tư hữu và tự do ngôn luận. Đó là cái khác biệt về bản chất, thế nên nếu có ai đặt vấn đề: Khi nào VN có dân chủ, thì câu trả lời luôn là KHÔNG BAO GIỜ. Nên đặt ngược câu hỏi: Liệu VN có cần dân chủ để phát triển không? Tôi nghĩ là không.

Như có lần tôi nói trong một vài comment gần đây. Bản chất các nước dân chủ là có tầng lớp lãnh đạo kém tài nhiều tật, người dân thì quá nhiều người thiếu hiểu biết nên thường bầu chọn lãnh đạo sai. Chính vì vậy, họ mới cần cơ chế đối lập đủ mạnh để điều chỉnh lãnh đạo theo hướng có lợi hơn. Trong khi các nước XHCN như VN hay TQ hay Triều Tiên thì có lãnh đạo quá tốt tính và tuyệt vời (cách kiểm tra: tôi thách bất cứ ai tìm được điểm gì xấu của ông Trọng, ông Phúc đó), chính vì thế, cánh đối lập nếu có chỉ làm tình hình VN xấu đi mà thôi, không tốt cho phát triển. Tức là Việt Nam không cần dân chủ và không bao giờ trở thành nước dân chủ, Việt Nam chỉ cần trở thành nước xã hội chủ nghĩa đúng nghĩa mà thôi.

Vn có dân chủ nhưng là tập trung dân chủ, dân đen thực chất chả có quyền gì. Chỉ là hình thức

Dân chủ là dân làm chủ, nên trừ những nước quân chủ hoặc độc tài thì còn lại là dân chủ cả. Nhưng ông nào dân chủ hơn thôi chứ ko nước nào hoàn toàn dân chủ cả. Ngay cả Mỹ, thiên đường dân chủ thì tổng thống đem quân đi đánh ông nào hay thậm chí cho "thịt" tướng nước ngoài thì cũng đâu cần phải dân phê duyệt, thậm chí dân có khi còn phản đối. Có ông chủ nào đi biểu tình đòi phản chiến ko.

Việt Nam cũng là 1 nước dân chủ, nhưng quyền lực của dân chúng cao hay thấp như ở Mỹ mà thôi. 😂😂

Dân chủ thì ở đâu chẳng có hạn chế hay ko hạn chế còn tuỳ thuộc vào từng vấn đề.còn phát triển thì phải dựa vào yếu tố con người.một bộ lạc trong rừng amazon cũng có dân chủ chứ bạn.hi phát triển thì ai cũng biết rùi.tôi nghĩ là vậy

Dân chủ là cội nguồn để đi đến:

1. Dân chọn được người tài đúng chuyên môn để đưa đất nước phát triển về mọi mặt

2. Giám sát giữa 3 cơ quan Hành pháp, Lập pháp và Tư pháp để tránh lạm quyền, gây tham nhũng

Mình nghĩ là không 😷

Disclaimer: This is a Pakistani perspective on the question.

Let's start this with a story.

Ajay Kapur was the director of Global Strategy Research at Citibank, during the oil spike in the first decade of the 21st century where oil would go on to reach 140 bucks a barrel in 2008 (and 160 USD a barrel in around 2014 I think).

Ajay headed research into why the US equity market was not being impacted by the spike in oil prices. Logically speaking, a spike in oil prices in the US should lead to a spike in fuel prices at the pumps leading to less disposable income in the hands of US consumers. Which means, they would purchase fewer goods and spend less, leading to a businesses having less income. This would lead to a reduction in economic activity that should translate into a decline in stock prices for companies impacted by the reduced income.

The disconnect between stock market and the economic situation of the US was explained when Kapur factored in the fact that the US was a plutonomy: where the vast majority of its wealth was held by a small, concentrated cabal of families whose economic sway was vastly more powerful than the numerically larger but economically less powerful working class (and shrinking middle class).

Ajay’s purpose for these findings was to figure out which stocks his clients should invest in in the US market during a high oil price period, and he correctly identified luxury companies as the stable stock to invest in. Plutocrats are not impacted by fuel prices. They don’t live on budgets and from paycheck to paycheck. Their spending on luxury items would remain as is even during a recession and thus this stock would continue to yield profits to its investors.

But the more disturbing revelation of Ajay’s report was as follows:

Kapur’s insight was that, if the majority of a country is owned by very few people, it doesn’t necessarily matter what the oil price does. The oil price is important to people who are on a budget. If the cost of daily commute doubles in the space of a couple of months, then inevitably that will reduce the amount of money you have to spend on other things: holidays, trips to the cinema, even food. But if you are very wealthy, then the proportion of your income that you spend on travel is very low, so your spending will barely be affected at all. If your customary purchases are Birkin bags, Sunseeker yachts, or fourth home, perhaps in Miami, then changes to the oil price don’t matter, which has important consequences for the profitability of the companies that make those products.

Kapur thought too many of his fellow analysts were looking at the average consumer, when, in an age of inequality, the average consumer’s role in the economy was increasingly marginal. He used the word ‘plutonomy’ to describe economies where the wealthy have a disproportionate share of the assets (he claimed to have invented it, although it dates back to at least the mid-nineteenth century when it was used as a synonym for economics), places like Britain, America or Canada. His analysis was original and provided a fascinating insight into how the kind of luxury spending detailed in the previous two chapters is affecting the world.

‘In a plutonomy, there is no such thing as “the US consumer” or “the UK consumer’”, or indeed “the Russian consumer”,’ Kapur wrote. ‘There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie.’ According to the Citigroup analysts’ research, the top million households in the United States had approximately the same wealth as the bottom 60 million households. And rich people have relatively little of their wealth tied up in their homes, meaning that a far higher proportion of that wealth is disposable. If you looked at just financial assets, and exclude housing from the calculation, the top million households held more of the sum total of American wealth than the bottom 95 million households put together.

Moneyland: The Inside Story Of The Crooks And Kleptocrats Who Rule The World


When wealth concentration and inequality reach such heights that your average citizen isn’t really owning much of the economic pie anymore, then answer me this: In a political system where political factions need money to generate influence and presence and retain political power, who should they approach as potential donors?

The average citizen? Or the plutocrats?

If 20 families in my country own 60–70% of the wealth in it, what exactly is my impetus as a politician to serve the needs of the people when my access to the wealth that drives the political machinery stems from only a few notable wealthy elites?

If you have 5 million people living in desperate poverty, illiterate and malnourished vs 200 living in ultra-elite, wealthy status, it’s not hard in a democracy to manipulate electoral politics and voting in a manner that the votes of the 5 million end up not counting despite their numerical advantage.

Which is why democracy runs aground in nations like Afghanistan or the Latin American banana republics.


Americans surely must feel that their country is a democratic one. They can vote, they have separations of power, there is freedom of speech, courts of law.

But I suppose if you posed the same question to black communities wracked with police brutality, gang warfare and urban decay the concept of being a democratic nation suddenly doesn’t have much of a glow to it.

And I guess when Kent state university students were being gunned down in their college campuses for protesting against their country’s participation in war crimes in Southeast Asia, well America must not have felt very democratic back then.

Similarly, put 50 Pakistani elder men in a drawing-room to discuss politics and they will feel that it’s quite a democratic setting.

Ask their wives who have been banished to the Kitchen to cook feasts for their pleasure, and ask how much democracy exists in the stench and heat of the Kitchen, amidst hot burning metal pans and sweat pouring through silk shirts.

The tribe may define their tribal Jirga as democratic, even as it passes death by stoning sentences. The Swedes may define their democracy as flawed if the Prime Minister takes a BMW to work instead of a bike.


Democracy itself is a difficult thing to measure. We have tried though. We have indexes that measure how free a country is.

These same indexes declared Russia quite free in the 90s, under Yeltsin, even as young women disappeared from the streets, kidnapped to be trafficked into brothels in Europe. Or young Russian men dying in wars in Chechnya and succumbing to AIDS, alcoholism, and despair that wracked post-USSR collapse Russia.

If you ask somebody from Pakistan, they will define the perfect democracy as “corrupt” politicians hanging from lamp posts, judges and generals calling the shots and liberal “fascists” put in their place.

Same for other countries like America where the Republican definition of democracy varies immensely from the Bernie Bro's definition of it.

Quite often: Democracy's definition changes to suit the advantage of the person defining it. The college-educated, suburban soccer mom might voice her opposition to the illiterate getting a vote.

The army man may say that veterans should have a greater say in a democracy than civilians.

The rural farmer may want to stick it to the big city types and reduce the power of urban, populous areas in favor of the vast countryside with maybe a dozen people per dozen square kilometer.

Given all this differences in perceptions for what it means to be a democracy among people, as well as difficulty in agreeing to what standards a democracy should be measured by, the important thing to keep in mind when trying to study China’s democracy is simply that the definition of democracy and perception of it in China may not be the same as the one man, one vote democracy of the other nations.


From the Pakistani viewpoint: China’s democracy is built, not around the principle of equal representation, but wealth circulation.

But it seems quite clear to us at least that the Chinese government ensures a sense of equality and representation among its citizens not by giving them a vote directly, but by circulating wealth among them so that they remain relevant and key players to the Chinese economy. And thus, retain a relevant voice in public affairs by means of their individual economic power.

There has been a concerted attempt to paint China’s political and economic philosophy as a capitalist or semi-capitalist, particularly from the proponents of capitalism who are eager to use China’s success to bolster the credentials of the free market, neo-liberal, deregulated form of economics.

But the view from Islamabad sees the PRC leadership as still fairly dedicated Marxists who still uphold the philosophy of Marxism even as their methods have changed.

Central to the concept of the Marxist theory of labor is the fact that society is split between the working class who produce all the goods and commodities that society needs through their labor. And on top of them is a ruling class that takes the surplus-value of their labor and returns to them a fraction of the value while keeping the remaining portion with themselves while having contributed no labor to the production of goods.

This is the basis of the strained social relations in society and the injustice that characterizes it. That one class takes more than it puts into society in terms of labor (whether physical or intellectual). And leads to the emergence of class warfare.

If you don’t want to go all out with Marxist revolutionary tactics and seize the means of production/abolish private property: the softer approach is to circulate wealth in your society by returning a greater fraction of the surplus-value of labor put in by the working class back to them.

Wealth circulation can take many forms: It can be a literal transference of wealth from government taxation to the working class. Or it can be the implementation of social welfare programs, affordable healthcare, education, and subsidies, etc.

This lessens the alienation of the worker from the product of their labor and the surplus value they are deprived of, leading to a softening of class warfare lines and a just, equitable and egalitarian society to rise.

The Scandinavian nations can be good examples of this.

But note, that the definition of the just and equal society in Marxist POVs is not based on concepts like freedom of speech, the right to vote and so on. But on economic terms. Almost as if the ideals of freedom of speech and the right to vote can only arise properly from the seed of an economically just society where wealth is circulated and resources distributed fairly.

This is the basis of the Chinese democratic ideal: Not to blindly give the vote and freedom of speech while having no plan for economic wealth circulation. But to develop a system of wealth circulation first that allows for wealth redistribution and poverty alleviation.

And it has worked:

https://cdn.noron.vn/2022/02/12/main-qimg-b78f8861dcf27a63b10c96b1d1c48521-lq-1644637142-1644637142.jpg

China's poverty reduction at a crucial stage: white paper

Because human freedom and rationality as ideals and the human intrinsic desire to live in a free, just society can only arise if the material and economic conditions a person finds themselves in are just in a material manner.

Otherwise, you end up with a democracy where the top 1% wealthy elite control the bulk of the economic pie and utilize their wealth to control media, political, law enforcement institutions to control and neutralize the voting power of the millions under them.

But if you have a large, educated and materially well off society that is capable of thinking about subjects beyond their day to day survival, then political ideals like freedom and democracy have a better chance of automatically manifesting (bar some external manipulation).


Countries like Iraq, Pakistan or Afghanistan right now are examples of nations where the ideals of one man, one vote and democracy were implemented without any care given to the economic systems of wealth circulation and wealth redistribution.

A democratic system without institutions strong enough to implement a nationwide, effective taxation system, anti-corruption bodies strong enough to ensure the tax was spent on the public welfare and legislative bodies honest enough to implement social welfare and public benefits programs is a democratic system that gives way to rapacious exploitation.

And you end up with elected parliamentarians looting the public exchequer, tin-pot dictators offshoring billions in wealth, political parties implementing tributary payoffs to maintain goons on the payroll. Billions if not trillions in wealth are offshored, misplaced, misspent or not utilized at all.

And a democracy becomes a desperate scramble to steal and accumulate as many resources as you can to protect your clan, family or tribe at the expense of everyone else. Public education remains underfunded. Children die of treatable diseases on hospital floors. The police serve as hired thugs for the ruling elite. And the folk at the top accumulate and concentrate wealth and the products of the working class’s labor while the working class toils in misery at the bottom retaining a fraction of the value they create.

This is the heart of the reason why post-colonial nations that adopted democracy before they could adopt strong institutions capable of taxation, anti-corruption and wealth circulation remained trapped in systemic poverty.

Which is how we end up with countries where you are free to vote as you please but you can die of thirst and starvation, gunned down in the street by opposing political factions, die of treatable disease and have the grim duty of watching your children grow up malnourished and illiterate.

The right to vote can mean so little in a society built upon economic injustice.

China may have adopted capitalistic ways of generating value but they have retained the Marxist philosophy behind what to do with that surplus-value. In that, this surplus-value is invested back into the working class as affordable education, healthcare, jobs and so on to return to them the very value they create.

And this economic justice is what translates into their attempts at creating a just society where the CPC manages and reduces the tensions between the working class and the owners of private property.


Every revolution carries within it the seeds of its own destruction.

– Princess Irulan (Dune, Frank Herbert)

If you think the CPC has cracked the code to economic justice though, you would be wrong. And even within the mighty political iron framework of the CPC, cracks have begun to appear:

Eric Tse, who recently graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's prestigious Wharton School of Finance, was gifted about US$3.88 billion in his family company's shares on Tuesday.

That's not surprising, as his father Tse Ping was previously a committee member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), the country's top political advisory body.

On October 1, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the younger Tse attended open only to invited guests and dignitaries.

The company statement on Tuesday said Tse's parents had transferred the shares to him "to refine the management and inheritance of family wealth." The document was signed by the company's chairwoman, Theresa Tse -- Eric's sister.

Shares aside, Tse also gained a new position -- executive director of the company's executive board committee. According to , before being given this role, he previously served as CEO at the North America arm of recruitment company Liepin.

CNN has reached out to Tse for comment.

Tse is part of a new wave of wealth in China. A "rich list" released showed that although Chinese wealth is concentrated in the hands of tech entrepreneurs, pharmaceutical moguls -- like those in Tse's family -- are making ground. Pharmaceutical moguls make up 8 percent of China's rich list, double that of 10 years ago.

Eric Tse, 24, just became a billionaire overnight

Alas, nothing lasts forever. And while it seems that the engine of economic growth will continue to churn, for now, it appears that the political will and appetite within state institutions inside the PRC to restrain and contain the wealth concentration of wealthy, politically well-connected elite will slowly erode as the comforts of a post-revolutionary government settle in a Brezhnev style ossification of state apparatus.

It should be kept in mind that the systemic damages from wealth concentration aren’t apparent immediately but take decades to manifest. And while the wealth concentration today may seem like a harmless side effect of Asia’s economic rise, 3 to 4 decades down the line the picture will be of ultra wealthy Chinese billionaires offshoring billions in wealth to starve public universities of research funds and pushing a shrinking middle class into poverty.

Exactly what’s happening in America today.

And THAT will be what undermines China’s democratic ideal far more than any ability or inability to vote.

This is not a deterministic future though. And the anti-corruption drives under Xi have yielded results that can be measured empirically if you know what data to look at:

In 2015, the accountancy firm Deloitte published a study of Swiss watches headlined Uncertain Times, which described how leading manufacturers of exclusive timepieces were gloomy about the future. The reason for the misery came not from a recession, or from any problem with the products, but rather from the fact that the government in China was cracking down on corruption, which was harming sales of the kind of lavish gifts that crooked officials had previously accepted in return for favorable decisions. ‘The pessimism about China and Hong Kong can be explained by the lower rates of growth in the economies of many emerging markets, and also the anti-corruption and anti-kickback legislation in China: these developments have led to a fall in the sales of luxury products,’ Deloitte’s analysts wrote. ‘81% of watch executives indicated that demand in China has fallen over the past 12 months due to anti-corruption legislation.’

Luxury watches are popular among officials since they provide a discreet but effective way of advertising their power. In 2009, the Russian newspaper Vedomosti mischievously published a compilation of photographs of the watches worn by top officials at public events, noting each one’s price and contrasting that with the declared income of the official in question. The cheapest watch belonged to the head of the Audit Chamber, costing a mere 1,800 Swiss francs. The majority were in the $10–50,000 range, beyond which a handful of officials had really splashed out. The deputy mayor of Moscow won both first and second place, with watches costing $1.04 million and $360,000; while Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov’s watch came third, with an estimated price of $300,000. The article caused some embarrassment to top officials, which is perhaps why the official photographer photoshopped a $30,000 Breguet timepiece off the wrist of the Patriarch of Moscow, as he sat at a highly polished table in 2012. The photographer neglected to remove the watch’s reflection, however, which both made the Patriarch look ridiculous and also rather undermined his attempts to argue for a return to asceticism and traditional values under the moral leadership of himself.

The watch controversy has not led to any concerted anti-corruption campaigns in Russia (perhaps to the relief of the manufacturers of luxury products), but a serious Chinese anti-corruption campaign began in 2012, with tens of thousands of people indicted, including members of previously untouchable classes – leading figures in the military, central government and provincial administrations. Officials stopped flaunting their wealth almost instantly, with dramatic consequences for the kind of businesses that Kapur had suggested his clients invest in, including businesses that produce luxury food and drink. France’s Bordeaux region had exported a mere 12,000 hectolitres of wine to China in 2005 but, within seven years, that had increased almost fiftyfold, to 538,000 hectolitres, with the ostentatious buying patterns of wealthy Chinese people utterly transforming the economics of French wine production. When the anti-corruption campaign started, and Chinese officials were no longer quite so willing to publicly imbibe bottles of Château Lafite, the region’s exports dropped by a quarter in two years. ‘Certainly, we are seeing fewer wealthy Chinese arriving on private planes and buying up €50,000 of wine in one go,’ a wine merchant rather laconically told a trade publication.

The same thing happened to other Western manufacturers who had profited from booming sales of the kind of prestigious products popular among China’s Moneylenders. In 2014 the Scotch Whisky Association blamed what it euphemistically referred to as the ‘Chinese government’s austerity campaign’ for the fact sales to China and Singapore (which often re-exported to China) had dropped. By the end of 2016, sales to these two Far Eastern markets were down by almost 50 percent. Any investors who had bought into wine or spirits producers in the hope of riding Kapur’s plutonomy wave would have had a very rude shock.

Moneyland: The Inside Story Of The Crooks And Kleptocrats Who Rule The World

There will always be a fork in the road moment for nations where they can choose what kind of future they want by deciding what aspects of society they are willing to tolerate and which ones they aren’t. Quite often, it’s the leaders at the top who set the pace for this tolerance and the lower hierarchies adjust accordingly.

From our experience in Pakistan, we have been a flawed democracy at times and a military dictatorship at others. In either case, we have seen the power of our votes neutralized in a system where economic resources are concentrated and offshored or integrated into tributary systems. And not given back to the toiling masses as education, healthcare, and subsidies. Leaving millions trapped in desperate poverty, willing to sell their votes for a single meatloaf (this happens literally btw).

Forget freedom and democracy, people are not even aware of what the power of their votes mean in a society where the wealthy elite control the levels of public education and media.

So perhaps we would be keen to explore whether we too, should adopt the approach of establishing economic justice before we establish democratic ideals. Or perhaps democratic ideals are something that could arise as a consequence of economic justice.

Only time will tell.

Nguồn: